Language of terrorism is Schrödinger's Cat of security

THE announcement by the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram that is has aligned itself with the self proclaimed Islamic State has led to dire warnings by experts but how seriously should we take it?

The announcement, as with most issues surrounding terrorism, is a speech act with little impact other than that which we bestow upon it. Until Boko Haram made the announcement it may or may not have been allied to IS, it took a public statement for it to happen. A speech act is the Schrödinger's cat of securitisation, it may be both or neither until it is spoken at which point it becomes a reality.

This works both ways. For Boko Haram they can now claim allegiance to a vast terror network. The reality of the situation is that it will make very little difference though. In the 70's and 80's groups such as the Irish Republican Army were suspected of training in Libya and allegedly supplied weapons by the then Soviet Union. The IRA didn't need to pledge allegiance to Gaddafi to gain support they just had to have mutually beneficial aims. The same is true for Boko Haram and IS. Neither side needed to pledge allegiance to the other. They both are drawn from the same pool and are already likely to have been providing support where applicable.

The news has however given those on the right of the political spectrum a field day in spreading their own element of fear for their own ends.

 “By Boko Haram pledging to the Islamic State, Shekau has secured a safe haven for Boko Haram's leadership. Even if the current Nigerian offensives are to succeed, a temporary escape could be made to another IS stronghold from where Boko Haram's life cycle can be maintained irrespective of distance,” claimed Veryan Khan, editorial director of Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), speaking to the American right wing Fox network.

Here lies an example of how a speech act can be used to promote what is known as securitisation, the concept that something is a security issue. The pledge doesn't in itself give IS or Boko Haram a foothold in the other's territory. By changing the perspective of the situation however this is what Khan has managed to allow without IS even having to accept it. Terrorism is about ideology, twisted as it may be, ideology is spread by words, the violence is just there to back them up. These words have very little power in and of themselves until they are given credence. 

By using particular language those who claim to be fighting the idea of terrorism are able to achieve their own ends and launch further military actions, as was seen by the disastrous intervention in Iraq, which rather than stabilising the Middle East directly led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. 

Likewise Boko Haram is no more likely today then it was last month to work with IS. Now they have said that they will, rather than doing so anyway, they have created a security issue which was already alive it was just still in its box.

A terrifying definition of the data

FIGURES released this week have pointed to a dramatic upswing in the number of terrorist attacks globally. While the majority of these are based in Iraq where the self proclaimed Islamic State is a highly visible presence some in Western media and political circles have picked up on the news as an excuse to call for ever more draconian measures to be implemented in the curtailing of civil liberties.

Since the tragic events of September 11th 2001 for many in the West terrorism has become synonymous with Islam. The history of its use over even the last century has been lost. The actions of the Provisional Irish Republican Army appear to have been forgotten. 

White supremacist bombings in the United States are pushed to one side in favour of a new belief that terrorism is religious rather than political, and by religious the conservative right wing mean Islamic.

The report into the rise in terrorist attacks will not help the debate by making claims that the  four main groups responsible for 66% of all deaths from terrorist attacks throughout 2013, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and the self-styled Islamic State, were motivated by a radicalised and perverted form of Islam.

All four groups used "religious ideologies based on extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam", claimed the report before adding, "To counteract the rise of religious extremism, moderate Sunni theologies need to be cultivated by credible forces within Islam."

What the report seems to overlook by counting attacks by groups such as IS and Boko Haram is that terrorism, rather than the ideology of the groups, has changed. These are not loosely organise networks of cells with a clearly defined political agenda. These are highly trained hierarchical insurgent armed forces. If they are to be counted as terrorist groups, which by their methods of instigating fear and anti-state actions they can arguably be claimed as being, then so to should dissidents in Ukraine. So to should drug cartels in South America. 

If we are to get an accurate figure for terrorist actions then it needs to be made clear what a terrorist act is and what classes as a terrorist group. 

While the report itself is a well balanced academic and useful piece it allows for its misuse by the right wing by not addressing this issue clearly enough.

As with any form of data gathering, particularly on such a complex and wide reaching issue clarification of the measurements and ensuring a lack of bias is always going to be a difficult thing to do.

In Israel this week a horrendous attack on a synagogue has left five people dead. There is no doubt that this was a hideous and brutal attack. What could be questioned, however, is whether this was a terrorist attack. There is nothing to say that this was not an act of madness by psychologically traumatised individuals. Indeed if the act had been carried out by a Christians in exactly the same way then this is what it would quite probably have been counted as.

Before we dismiss a rise in killings as a rise in Islamic fundamentalism we must clearly identify what the criteria we are using is lest we taint a religion based on peace and honour unjustly. 

Tackling Boko Haram

A GLIMMER of hope has been shone on the fate of more than 200 missing Nigerian schoolgirls following the release of a video this morning. The video, which was obtained by the French News Agency AFP, shows about 130 of the girls wearing full length abayas and apparently praying. Speaking for 17 minutes the leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau, claims that the girls, the majority of whom were Christian, have converted to Islam.
The plight of these girls has gripped the world. In a rare break from tradition the American First Lady, Michelle Obama, took the weekly Presidential address to appeal for help. The hashtag bringbackourgirls has become an international phenomena, with British Prime Minister David Cameron promoting it on national television.
The video released by Boko Haram, whose name means "Western education is forbidden" has helped to galvanize the campaign. Already teams from the UK and USA are on the ground helping with the search for the girls, who were kidnapped on April 14th, and an Israeli counter-terrorism unit is reportedly on its way.
A number of observers have warned, however, that this international agenda has detracted from the larger scale threat posed by the group. Since January Boko Haram has been responsible for more than 1500 deaths in the area. In February they were reportedly responsible for the deaths of a 59 boys in a school in the northeast Nigerian town of Bama.
The French government has offered to host a summit with Nigeria and its neighbours to combat the threat which Boko Haram poses to the stability of the region. Speaking during a visit to the Azeri capital Baku on Saturday French President Hollande said: "With Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathon,  I have proposed to hold a meeting with the countries bordering Nigeria."
Nigerian Interior Minister Abba Moro has dismissed the terrorist group's video demands for a prisoner exchange, stating that it was "absurd" for them to set demands.
With the world now watching a meaningful solution to tackling Boko Haram is firmly on the agenda. By releasing the video, however, it appears as though they are prepared to use emotional blackmail to distract from their attempts to destabilise the region.
Posted via Blogaway
Posted via Blogaway

Posted via Blogaway

The fall of a superpower

Has America’s role as the global moderator of all that is right been compromised beyond repair? That is the question which must surely be asked in the wake of recent events involving the world’s foremost superpower.

Rather than demonstrating its power America’s announcement on Tuesday that it would send a team to help find more than 200 missing Nigerian schoolgirls proved that it no longer has the teeth to act when needed.

The world has known since April 14th that the terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped the girls from their school. The group, whose name translates loosely as “Western education is a sin”, was known to have been trading the girls into marriage and shipping them across the border. Yet the world, and in particular America, sat back and did nothing.

Nigeria’s own government, ostensibly fearful of reprisal from this increasingly powerful group, did little to take action, preferring to hope that the loss of so many young women would go unnoticed. They are fighting a rear guard action against extremism though. They are under constant fear of what the next atrocity will be. If allowing more than 200 young girls to be taken could be seen as a price to keep things from escalating then apparently it was a price they were willing to pay.

The West, however, is under no such constraints. America has time and again pledged its strength to root out extremism and fight for a moral cause. Why is it therefore that it did nothing until its hand was forced by a statement released by the group?

The same story has been repeated time and again. With Syria President Obama clearly stated that chemical weapons were a red line which could not be crossed. To do so would bring the wrath of the world down upon the Syrian government like so much biblical thunder. Chemical weapons have been used though and America and the West have done nothing. Refugees flood across the borders and many more are trapped inside besieged cities, waiting for the next dose of chemicals to fall upon them, and the West does nothing.

In Ukraine America made it clear that they would support the newly formed government and would take strong action if Russia was seen to be instigating aggression. Pro-separatist groups roam the streets, many equipped with Russian weaponry. Reports come in on a near daily basis of supposed Russian interference in the region. Crimea fell with Russian support and its people left Ukraine. Yet the West does nothing more than threaten sanctions which have already been demonstrated beyond a doubt not to work.

America, Britain, France, Germany et al cannot wage war on every country which they deem to have gone against their moral principles. The West cannot be the world’s police force. Imposing a different culture and identity on a people through force has already been proven to fail in Afghanistan and Iraq. To keep pretending, however, that the world has not changed, that the threat of force without the will to back it up and that the ability to do so even exists undermines any hope that a more rational approach to tackling increasing global unrest can ever be found.